From: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2008-05-29 19:33:41 |
Message-ID: | e51f66da0805291233j7ad69fbclbb01a344cab43437@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On 5/29/08, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> * The proposed approach is trying to get to "real" replication
> incrementally. Getting rid of the loss window involved in file-by-file
> log shipping is step one, and I suspect that step two is going to be
> fixing performance issues in WAL replay to ensure that slaves can keep
> up. After that we'd start thinking about how to let slaves run
> read-only queries. But even without read-only queries, this will be
> a useful improvement for HA/backup scenarios.
I agree with this plan, but I think this extends also for read-only
queries - we don't need to have the perfect, no-overhead solution
as the first step, instead lets have simple and working solution
with some overhead, then improve that one.
And for the first-step solution, I think letting VACUUM keep tuples
around based on slave queries is preferable to letting slaves lag.
This is useful to more situations.
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-05-29 19:54:03 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2008-05-29 19:30:07 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-05-29 19:54:03 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2008-05-29 19:30:07 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |